I'll put some more stuff up in this thread, which again, I can't really recommend anyone read since it is just laundry and rather dull. But I did promise I would put out an explanation for everyone - one I could not post at the official BBS since there only ADB's position is allowed to remain.
Also, I don't want things to be "negative" here. I view this as a forum where we can hopefully grow a real SFB community, not as a place to bitch about ADB or SVC. So, this will be the only thread in which I ever post things regarding this matter. It will get updated from time to time and I will reply to questions here, but only here. I'll start, since I don't yet know how to uplioad and link to documents, a recent email I sent to ADB that summarizes the situation as I see it. You all are welcome to think I am just a **** or agree with me or anything in between.
_______________________
Jean,
I am replying, really, only because you say you are confused by my
actions. I thought my reasons were made clear the last time we
discussed this, but since that has been almost a year ago, perhaps you
have forgotten. My issue is straight forward, though the details do get
messy (although, without a policy on ADB's part to delete and edit just
about every post they view in a negative light, the details would be
easier as a record would exist).
Last year, in RAT 28 I was suspended from the BBS and not allowed to
participate in RAT 28 because I was purportedly disruptive. My
"disruptive behavior" at that time came from my publicly objecting to
the suggestion from SVC (and contrary to the strong wishes of the Judge)
that because of a communication problem, more players must be allowed to
enter RAT 28 AND (importantly) they would get to do so with full
knowledge of every ship selected by every player and with certain
knowledge that the vast majority of opponents would not be a first round
match. I found this absurd and stated so, the also Judge found this
absurd and stated so. I further stated that (as confirmed by an earlier
email sent to the Judge) that if this decision stood, I would withdraw.
I suggested as an alternative that everyone be allowed to reenter and
that all participants (new and old) should be put back in the opponent
pool and a new tree drafted. For my vehament objection and
suggested alternative, I was suspended from the BBS and banned from RAT
28. In the end, ADB decideed to do what I suggested all along and (with
the exception of one game that had already started): the new players
were allowed in; the old players were allowed to reselect their ships
and a new tree was drawn up. So basically, I was suspended and banned
not for being wrong or troublesome, but for expressing my objection
publically even though ADB itself ultimately decided I was right.
About two months later, I was again suspended from the BBS and banned
from all future RATs (pending submission of my 4 articles), for calling
out publically Mike West for duplicitious posts in relation to a
proposed FC rules change (the change to EM). Fortunately here, a record
does exist, both because you all never delete Mike West's posts, so
seeing his history is easy and because as things were getting more
convoluted I expected you might start deleting or editing posts of mine
or other, so I cut and pasted them as things went. Ultimately it is
very clear that Mike's actions were duplicitous. I felt this was a real
diservice to the community because if Mike had been honest about the
issue from the start we (the community) could have had a real discussion
about the problem he saw. As it was, weeks were wasted discussing
whether EM was more favorable to disruptor ships or photon ships and the
real "problem" Mike saw - that EM purported made plasma
too strong against non-SW races - was left unaddressed. That was a
real shame and I publicly said so. ADB didn't like that, so they
suspended me a second time from the BBS. ADB also, similtainiously, but
purportedly unrelatedly, banned me from all RATs until I got my articles
in. As an aside, but if true a fact that leads me to believe this is
not really about the articles, Tom Carroll also has outstanding articles
not written and he tells me he is not banned. I have no idea if that is
true, but it is what he tells me.
Again, to be clear, the articles are written. They are simply not
submitted. The article for V@O2004 is not what I would consider
particularly good because I did wait too long to start it. That is
entirely my fault. The other three are my usual quality and detail.
As I see this situation, one of four things can happen:
1. ADB can convince me that I am wrong. I am a fair and open-minded
person. If ADB wants to convince me that I have things all wrong, I'll
listen; if I agree I'll both submit the articles and publically
apologize for the situation.
2. SVC and ADB can publically apologize for the suspentions and banning
and revoke the banning. At that point I will publically and graciously
accept the apology and submit my articles.
3. ADB can choose to drop the whole matter. ADB can revoke the banning,
but not apologize. I won't get my public apology and ADB won't get its
articles (I'll post them on the web somewhere so that those that care
can read them). In that case, while unfortunate that ADB and I could
not see eye-to-eye on the matter, at least it would be resolved and we
could both move on.
4. Things can stay as they are.
I hope this helps clarify all of our issues with one another. Contrary
to your suggestion in your last paragraph, I do not act out of anger. I
do not have temper tantrums. I appriciate that you do not know me well
enough to know if this is true, but you can feel free to ask any of my
long-time friends in the SFB community. I am not infrequently sarcastic
and sometimes I can be a bit of an ass, but anger is just not something
that motivates me; I do not act rashly, but rather always with purpose.
-Paul
From Jean Sexton on ADB Boards
It is not ADB, Inc.'s policy to discuss disciplinary matters in public. However, since Paul Scott has chosen to take his case public, we will point out some factual errors in what he has posted elsewhere as a response to Jean Sexton's email to him.
Paul Scott states
Quote:
"Last year, in RAT 28 I was suspended from the BBS and not allowed to participate in RAT 28 because I was purportedly disruptive. My "disruptive behavior" at that time came from my publicly objecting to the suggestion from SVC (and contrary to the strong wishes of the Judge) that because of a communication problem, more players must be allowed to enter RAT 28 AND (importantly) they would get to do so with full knowledge of every ship selected by every player and with certain knowledge that the vast majority of opponents would not be a first round match."
That statement is not completely accurate. One simply needs to look at the topic: Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: Star Fleet Battles Online: Master Tournament Deadline/Rules Folder to see that the rules for RAT 28 were posted on August 10, 2008. One can see here: Star Fleet Universe Discussion Board: Star Fleet Battles: Star Fleet Battles Online: Tournaments: RAT28/RA08Q3: Archive through August 10, 2008 that indeed some of Paul Scott's posts were deleted. However, he was not stopped from competing in RAT 28 until later. If Paul Scott's RAT 28 posts were the cause of his suspension, he would have been suspended by August 10, 2008.
Paul Scott states
Quote:
" About two months later, I was again suspended from the BBS and banned from all future RATs (pending submission of my 4 articles), for calling out publically Mike West for duplicitious posts in relation to a proposed FC rules change (the change to EM)."
That statement has many inaccuracies. One need only look at the Federation Commander Forum Index -> Rules Questions -> A question about new EM rule on the third page to see that Paul Scott has his dates wrong. He was suspended on August 16, 2008 for his multiple abusive personal attacks upon Mike West. As everyone knows, if a person has a complaint about an officer of the company, it is handled in private through email. At that point, one need only look back at the RAT 28 topic to determine that Paul Scott's suspension from that tournament happened simultaneously with his suspension from the BBS and Forum.
Other issues in Paul Scott's letter can only be disproved by our internal disciplinary files and those will not be released to the public by ADB, Inc. It would be a breach of trust and privacy, in our eyes.
However, you now know what the public record shows. It is indeed regrettable that Paul Scott posted his email without verifying his facts. We apologize to our customers that this matter has taken so much time away from game design and producing new products, but these easily proven inaccuracies could not be allowed to stand unchallenged.
So....
They reply by noting some timing differences. My only reply to that, of course, is that fine - maybe I got some dates wrong, but you didn't respond substantively to a single issue. Not surprising, since it is likely that you cannot.
"Other issues in Paul Scott's letter can only be disproved by our internal disciplinary files and those will not be released to the public by ADB, Inc. It would be a breach of trust and privacy, in our eyes."
Convenient - you have super-secret files that prove I'm completely off base, but you can't disclose them. Fine, well, to the extent your concerns of "breach of trust and privacy" relate to my trust and privacy (and I cannot imagine to whom else you could be referring) you are officially released by me from any such obligations. Feel free to post away.
Of course, you should feel free to do it here and know your posts will not be deleted or modified in any way. A courtesy you extend to no one.
Missing Info
What is missing here, in my mind, is the reason behind the disallowance of Paul to play in any sanctioned event or any event Paul plays in to be desanctioned. Is it really only because the articles have not been submitted? Is this rule written anywhere? Are past Fleet Captain's who did not write articles banned, too? Is it because Paul promised at one point to deliver the articles and did not? So is breaking one's promise of some variety now an offence that can get someone banned from sanctioned tournament play? Or is it a combination of all of the above along with what ADB perceives (perhaps correctly) to be a history of antagonistic behavior on Paul's part?
I think if some rule was made and followed from then on that would be one thing but this seems rather arbitrary to me or at least retroactively enforced. Whether it is or not, it could give the appearance of being singularly directed at one person and does seem unfair to some in the SFB community. Paul admits above to being a bit of an ass but I would hope that is not enough to get one booted but one could view the limited available facts that way very easily.
I fully admit that I do not know the whole story (and do not want to, quite frankly) but I think it is worthwile to understand why the sanctioned tournament ban was put into place so others can avoid similar "mistakes." However, with potentially no rule or a changing and retroactively enforced rule that did not exist prior, this seems difficult.
In my mind, the board suspensions are a separate and much less serious issue than banning someone from playing in a tournament or punishing those judges who want to let everyone play that wants to. This is supposed to be a fun game and I do understand preserving the integrity of the tournament. I fail to see how breaking one's promise to do something or failing to do something someone wants you to or being an ass (if those are the any of the reasons) impacts the integrity of the tournament. If there is more to it then so be it and I will admit my ignorance. This is not my game and I do not own a BBS. I understand that SFB is SVCs world and, much like Start Wars is Lucas' world, I don't have to like all of it it but I do have to deal with it. Or, I can choose the course I am on now which is to continue the friendships I have made through the game but keep not playing the game. Many other stalwart tournament players seem to be on that same path based on tournament attendance for whatever reason, related to the above or not. Sad, but true. I do hope all of this can be reconciled at some point.
Ken
The "Paul Scott Only" Rule
As Ken notes:
"Whether it is or not, it could give the appearance of being singularly directed at one person and does seem unfair to some in the SFB community."
This is, of course, a big part of my beef. I fully believe I am banned just because I am outspoken about what I think is wrong. I don't think the articles are anything other than an excuse. An excuse, to be sure, that they have backed themselves into a corner with because if I did bow to their bullying and submit them, they would appear to have little choice but to accept.
As I noted:
"As an aside, but if true a fact that leads me to believe this is not really about the articles, Tom Carroll also has outstanding articles not written and he tells me he is not banned."
This is still true and not refuted by Jean's or Cole's reply on the ADB BBS. If Tom is, in fact, banned like I am, they could just say it and make it clear that there really is an even-handed approach to this non-sense. they are, unfortunately, full of it. So this is not going to happen.
That said, I do have a solution to all of this. There were some articles written by Tom some years ago in a CL. They were scant reports of his battles - no fault of Tom's since they were written, in some cases, over a decade after the battles. I am going to take my reports over the next few days and cut them down to that level. That level must be acceptable, because they were acceptable for Tom. I will then submit those for publication in CL. Later, once they have been published, I will post my full articles here.
Since their egos prevent them from issuing an apology - which is all I have ever asked, I will have to be the one that ends this. I think that is pathetic, but then they have never before demonstrated a capacity to be anything but.
I do seem to recall
It seems to me that SVC issued an edict after 2007 Origins that Tom would not be participating in any more sanctioned tournaments until he coughed up his article. I questioned Tom about this, and he knew nothing about it. But it was on the BBS somewhere, and may be deleted by now.
At the very least, they are not going after Tom with the same gusto, as he is generally pretty quiet.
There was a post saying Tom was in the doghouse as well
I'm still trying to find it. I asked Tom about it on SFBOL at the time, and his answer was 'whatever'. It may have been deleted in the Great Archive Purge.
Tom not Banned - just me - per ADB
From ABD - "Paul, you were allowed to compete at Origins 2008 *only* because you promised Steven Petrick that you would produce those articles. That puts you in an entirely different category than Tom Carroll. Until you turn in those articles, written to the current standards that you yourself set..."
So, several things to note:
1. I am supposedly in a different category from Tom because I made a promise to produce articles *AS A CONDITION* of being allowed to play at Origins in 2008.
The first very obvious fallacy to this twisted logic is that I was apparently banned from play (though never told so) for Origins 2008. Then this ban was lifted because I made a promise. Of course, that only begs the question of why I was banned in 2008 while Tom was not. They are, as usual, just full of it.
2. They have now - for the first time - suggested my articles must be up to *MY* previous standards, and not the standards, generally, set for CL.
Well, what ever. I assume you all can see what total **** they are being (though, really, nothing new there), but they'll get what they get and probably find it "lacking" because they really have no intent on doing anything other than forcing me to try an hit an ever moving target.
Latest Email sent in
Drama for all to enjoy.
_____
Jean,
Thank you for the reply. I'll make note of only one thing, then I'll get back to the business of getting my articles in a minimal acceptable shape.
"Paul, you were allowed to compete at Origins 2008 *only* because you promised Steven Petrick that you would produce those articles. That puts you in an entirely different category than Tom Carroll..."
OK, assuming this is true (which, frankly, it is not, but let's not worry about parsing the word "promise" at the moment), how was I in a different position from Tom at Origins 2008? According to your own statement, I was not going to be allowed to play in Origins 2008 and this was *before* the alleged promise that ADB claims is at the heart of all of this. ADB cannot have it both ways. Either Tom is banned, like me, for not turning in articles - OR - ADB applied a special rule to me, and me alone, at Origins 2008 - before, even by your own admission, any "promise" had been made.
Thanks again.
-Paul
Paul, I really think you and
Paul, I really think you and Tom were both banned after Origins 2007. It was done through a post from SVC which has since been deleted (or so it appears). Apparently Tom didn't even get the memo.
If thats true, then your attendance at Origins 2008 is the difference maker. You even had the audacity to win the thing in the crappiest of ships. Heh.
So *theoretically* if Tom shows up at Origins 2010, or a RAT, he will be put under the same restriction. Although somehow I doubt it.
Not according to ADB
please see above quote from ADB. If they banned Tom too, not only does Tom not know about it, but neither does ADB.
I have heard conflicting information, to be sure. Both you and Ken Burnside have suggested reading something official from ADB (that has now mysteriously disappeared). But you can see that their current position on this is that I am banned and Tom is not (and never has been). That it was a broken promise exclusively, and not a failure to submit articles, that triggered the ban.
Mind you
it would not surprise me in the least if ADB were to now suggest that Tom is banned and has been since after Origins 2007. It would also not surprise me if a post from SVC dated appropriately were to suddenly appear on the ADB BBS. If this entire conversation were taking place on their BBS, it would also not surprise me to see various posts deleted and conversations changed and an entirely new version of "the truth" professed.
Luckily, they have no power to modify things to their liking over here.
I'm still trying to find the BBS posting
But I distinctly remember reading it, and it named both you and Tom.
As to modifying the dates of posts, while it's possible to do so, I don't think anyone at ADB has the technical skills to do so.
Banning
If I was banned it's news to me.
One other thing I think people should know.
Paul Scott being banned from playing SFB Online ace tournaments is a violation of the contract that was signed between Online Game Systems and Symbiotic Games. I know that Paul Scott has mentioned this to the companies involved, but it has been ignored.
I don't want to push it for several reasons. First and foremost is because Paul Franz has done such a great job with SFB-Online and I don't have any desire to hurt his company or product in any way. (And to be honest I don't want the ban hammer to come down on me). But I find it odd that a company that talks about keeping promises, would put Paul Franz in a situation where he had to break a contract to keep them happy.
Gregg
Yeah
I brought it up to Paul Franz when this non-sense started. I have not pressed it because I also do not want to hurt SFBOL. And I honestly think that to prove a point and get his way, Cole would do just about anything - regardless of how self-destructive it would be.
Basically, ADB is hypocritical, but then that probably surprises no one and really - with a company that constantly adjusts and deletes facts it does not like - why should it.
Idle threat
The post was there. I think it was a passing, unnofficial mention at first. Tom kinda quit playing Tournament SFB at that time, so he has remained under the radar. Paul has remained in the SVC consciousness and for reasons other than the Victory articles.
ban hammer
"(And to be honest I don't want the ban hammer to come down on me). "
And that right there is there is why the way SVC runs things is WRONG.
No reply
No surprise, really. They lied themselves into a corner, so it's kind of hard to explain it.
Thanks for telling us what happened
I no longer ever have to worry about the ban hammer, so I'll say that I believe you completely, Paul.
I know how things on other forums can be distorted.
Hey, look on the bright side
You could be banned from playing all ADB games for life, like me.
Oh, and also I'm clinically insane due to a severe personality disorder.
Like SVC and SPP themself
Like SVC and SPP* themself then. But I am really curious about who you are.
Please tell me your name if you don't mind. (I am Carl-Magnus Carlsson)
*I have found SPP to be a bit strange, but that could be because we only has communicated by e-mail or posts on the BBS.
Ban Hammer
I think I was banned once but being a relative nobody I assume I was quickly forgotten and have never had anything mentioned about me posting again.
Certainly Ive had many posts deleted over the years.
Mostly because Im a dirty filthy pinko commie so my views on non SFB/F&E are quite foreign to the bulk of posters, which I assume disrupts their fragile views of the world.
Well, it's kind of the same for me....
"You could be banned from playing all ADB games for life, like me."
Because I'm never putting another penny into his grubby hands again.
And because of his parting shots at me after I was banned, I just don't want to be anywhere near him.
Hey, I still buy stuff.
I think it's an excellent game system. I just also think that things have gotten to the point where ADB needs to create a "Community Representative" position and step out of public participation in the boards. It's been obvious for some time that what SVC really wants is a blog--and, in fact, he's got one now.
I mean, if dealing with obstreporous posters on the message board causes you to fall behind in your production schedule, then you need to not have a message board!
*****
I think the thing that ticks me off the most, though, is the whole "delete posts" or "edit to empty" thing. Y'know, if you want a discussion to stop, then fine. If you want to say "don't act like that or I'll ban you", hey, your house. But to zap someone's words and then slag them off, in public, and delete all their attempts to answer back...seriously? You're gonna pull stunts like this and then lecture ME on how to conduct a polite discussion?
(Also, I like how in the latest CL there's a sorrowful, serious message about having to unfortunately ban a few people who--*sigh*--just refused to play well with others. Then, right underneath that, there's my humor bit about SFU football. A nice little kick in the nuts there.)
Well, that's your decision....
"Hey, I still buy stuff."
I can't say I agree with it, but it's your money, and your time.
I concur
I can't say I agree with it, but it's your money, and your time.
That's exactly the conclusion I came to years ago. I like the game (at least, as it existed back when I bailed out of it), but I'll never spend another penny on it again as long as any small portion of it could go to Cole. I've also ducked out of one gaming group when they said they wanted to start playtesting stuff. Not going to do a thing to help the idiot out.
And the best part is, we don't have to....
"Not going to do a thing to help the idiot out."
I have all of the F&E stuff I'll ever need. I can play until I hit the grave and never give him another penny.
He should have waited a few more weeks.... I was about to put in a order for all of the SFB rulebooks, to take advantage of that half-price sale. He missed out on about $300.
$$$
I recently spent about $180 on new stuff. But Ive hardly bought anything over the last decade (because I just havent liked anything) so it was almost needed.
My F&E stuff is a combination of very old and old.
If there ever is a warbook I'd consider it, but only if I can play something other than solo games.
For solo games I wouldnt spend anything.
But then again, even with games against an opponent you really only need 1 person with a strong knowledge of the rules.
If you are anywhere near NJ....
you can always come play with Me, Rob Padilla, and Russ Manning.
Our game has been on hold for some time, but I want to get it started again soon.
Just up the road...
Maybe 10,000 miles or so. May need to make it on a long weekend :)
My F&E purchasing decisions
I have gotten a pretty good handle on my completeist tendacies. I haven't bought any of the new products as I think everything about them suck. For future purchases,
I will probably buy ISC War (if only because the ISC is my favorite race). However, I will most likely wait for a little bit. I don't want to buy the first and get the fault ridden PoS that will be initially released.
I was considering Civil Wars but think I have dropped it. I think the map is just to small to really do a good Civil Wars module. Actually, I think ADB is missing a really good business idea of creating a separate line of products based on the civil wars. He could create an entire line were each game focuses on one Empire's civil wars, e.g. StarFleet Civil Wars: Romulan Rebellion, StarFleet Civil Wars Kzinti Uprising, StarFleet Civil Wars Federation Secession, etc.
And I won't even be around to fix this one...
"I don't want to buy the first and get the fault ridden PoS that will be initially released. "
I spend the past 2+ years getting the past two pieces of unadulterated shit made usable.
Alas, I'll not be able to fix the next few.
Oh, you got banned, too.
SVC, as much as he is the "father of SFB", has been known to throw his considerable weight around. I used to get VERY hot and bothered by his attitudes.
I've had a love / hate relationship with SVC for a number of years including me being banned for him calling me (paraphrased) a hack writer with no talent -- this despite him buying some of my fiction articles. My ban was lifted when he was "forced" to apologize for fear of a nasty lawsuit I had brewing. At least at the time it was the only official apology I'd heard of. On the other side I've been a judge for tournaments (including origins) before and after the banning and helped to get players into the game (before and after the banning). There even was discussion at several points (but never a meeting of the minds) on possible business dealings (NOT, I repeat, NOT SVC fault, only we couldn't agree on terms) AND SVC even approved of the old hardbound rulebooks I use to create WITHOUT ROYALTY.
I believe the key words I'd use with SVC are: mercurial, dictatorial, brilliant.
Knowing what I know of Paul Scott, I'm surprised he didn't get banned earlier... not because he is a bad guy.. hell I gamed with him for better part of 10 years.. but because .. well he is kind of a PITA (Pain in the A..). Paul has a grating personality (almost as bad as mine) and a sarcastic / irreverent side that rubs most people the wrong way.
I believe the key words I'd use with Paul Scott are : sarcastic, independent, genius
Can you see the friction between these two people.. it is fire waiting to happen.
I've written way too much on this specific topic.. Paul, you are in good company at being banned. Who knows... if SVC acts like he usually does you will be his bosom buddy next week.
Tom Gondolfi, AKA Eric_The_Silent
Hi Tom!
I remember you and the hardbound books. I always thought there were fantastic.
So did I
And I still have and am using mine. Pretty low tech for now-a-days but it still rocks.
Tom